# INGRAM v. S. DAVIS

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 17, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10418729

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 17, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10418729

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KAI D. INGRAM, )
)
Plaintiff, ) Civil No. 22-42
) Judge Marilyn J. Horan/
v. ) Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge
)
B. RUDZIENSKI, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER

This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge for
pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and
Rule 72 of the Local Rules for Magistrate Judges. On February 3, 2023, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 34, recommending that Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss, ECF No. 16, be denied as to Plaintiff Kai Ingram’s single claim of retaliation against
Defendant Allen Lynch, and granted as to all other claims. The Magistrate Judge further
recommended that, other than potential claims that may be brought against Defendants Davis and
Milliken, all other claims are to be dismissed with prejudice.
On March 27, 2023, the Court entered a Memorandum Order, adopting the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation and noting that Mr. Ingram had not filed Objections. ECF
No. 39. The Court also adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No.
35, and denied Mr. Ingram’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. ECF No. 39. On April
4, 2023, the Court learned that Mr. Ingram’s Objections were timely postmarked on March 16,
2023, but they did not arrive at the Clerk of Court’s office until April 4, 2023. Mr. Ingram’s
Objections concern the Report and Recommendation on the Motion to Dismiss, but he does not
object to the Report and Recommendation on the Motion for Temporary Restriping Order. The
Court ordered Defendants to file a Response to the Objections, after which the Court would
reconsider its March 27, 2023 Memorandum Order. The Defendants filed their Response to the
Objections on April 19, 2023. ECF No. 44. Following consideration of Mr. Ingram’s Objections
and the Defendants’ Response thereto, the Court will now make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report to which objection was made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Since there were no
Objections filed as to the Report and Recommendation for denial of the Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order, the Court’s March 27, 2023 decision, ECF No. 39, adopting said Report and
Recommendation, is not being reconsidered.

I. Objections
A. Retaliation Claim
Mr. Ingram argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in recommending dismissal of his
retaliation claim against Defendants Morris, Mackey, and LeMasters. Mr. Ingram alleges that

the Defendant officers, Lynch, Morris, Mackey, and LeMasters, retaliated against him, when
they falsely charged him with disciplinary infractions because he had filed a (separate) federal
lawsuit. Mr. Ingram argues that the alleged false disciplinary infractions led to an alleged unfair
disciplinary proceeding, wherein the infractions were upheld. According to Mr. Ingram, the
Parole Board rescinded his automatic reparole date based solely upon the alleged false
disciplinary infractions.
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the retaliation claim is
barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489
(1973). The Magistrate Judge provided an extensive explanation of the Supreme Court case law
concerning Heck. ECF No. 34, at 12-15. Under Heck, if a favorable judgment on Mr. Ingram’s
retaliation claim would “necessarily imply the invalidity” of his disciplinary punishment, his
conviction, his sentence, or the duration of his confinement, the claim must be dismissed. Heck,
512 U.S. at 486-87; Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (extending Heck to prison
disciplinary sanctions). Although the retaliation claim is aimed at allegedly false disciplinary

charges, said charges were affirmed in a disciplinary proceeding, which, according to Mr.
Ingram, was the sole reason the Parole Board rescinded his reparole date. Therefore, if Mr.
Ingram were successful on his retaliation claim concerning the disciplinary charges, it would
necessarily imply that the disciplinary proceeding, upholding the charges, was invalid. Such
would necessarily imply the invalidity of the Parole Board’s decision to rescind Mr. Ingram’s
reparole date. Therefore, Mr. Ingram’s retaliation claim must be dismissed pursuant to Heck and
its progeny. Mr. Ingram’s Objection is overruled.

B. First Amendment Denial of Access to Court

Mr. Ingram objects to the recommendation for dismissal of his access to court claim
against Defendant Lynch. Mr. Ingram does not identify any error in the Magistrate Judge’s
Report; instead, he reasserts the argument he made in response to the Motion to Dismiss. Mr.
Ingram asserts that Lynch violated his right to access the court by depriving Mr. Ingram of the
documents he needed to litigate his case at Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-359. Said Civil Action was
dismissed at the motion to dismiss stage, where a plaintiff may plead a claim without presenting
documents. In that Civil Action, Mr. Ingram simply failed to allege facts sufficient to state a
claim. The absence of documents, therefore, was not dispositive to the dismissal of that case.
Mr. Ingram “cannot claim he was barred from pursing a nonfrivolous, arguable claim” because
he lacked the documents, since his claim would have been dismissed regardless. Henry v.
Moore, 500 F. App’x 115, 117 (3d Cir. 2012). The Court finds no error with the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation. As such, Mr. Ingram’s Objection is overruled.

C. B. Rudzienski

Mr. Ingram objects to the dismissal of claims against B. Rudzienski. B. Rudzienski is the
SCI-Greene Hearing Examiner who determined that Mr. Ingram was guilty of having committed
disciplinary misconducts. Mr. Ingram alleges that said disciplinary charges formed the basis for
the Parole Board’s decision to rescind Mr. Ingram’s reparole date. Mr. Ingram alleges that B.
Rudzienski declined Mr. Ingram’s request that he/she view videotape evidence before rendering
his/her decision. As such, Mr. Ingram asserts that B. Rudzienski denied him due process at his
disciplinary hearing, which violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Magistrate
Judge recommends dismissal of claims against B. Rudzienski, finding said claims barred by
Heck. As discussed above, the Magistrate Judge reasoned that if Mr. Ingram were to prevail on

his claim that his disciplinary proceeding was unlawful and unconstitutional, it would necessarily
imply that the rescission of Mr. Ingram’s reparole date was invalid. Pursuant to Heck and its
progeny, Mr. Ingram’s Fourteenth Amendment claim against B. Rudzienski must be dismissed.
Mr. Ingram’s Objection is overruled.

D. Defendants Guyton, Zaken, Moslak, Sibauda, and Soikerum
Mr. Ingram objects to the dismissal of the above-named Defendants. He argues that each
has shown personal involvement in the complained-of conduct because of their knowledge,
acquiescence, and deliberate indifference. The arguments presented by Mr. Ingram are
essentially the same arguments he presented before the Magistrate Judge. The Court finds no
error with the dismissal of the above-named Defendants. Mr. Ingram’s Objection is overruled.

E. Defendants C/O Davis and C/O Milliken
Mr. Ingram objects to the dismissal of claims against Davis and Milliken. The Magistrate

Judge noted that any purported claim against Davis and Milliken could not be sustained, because
Mr. Ingram did not mention either Defendant in the body of the Complaint. Therefore, the
Magistrate Judge recommends Defendants Davis and Milliken be dismissed, without prejudice,
because Mr. Ingram has failed to plead their personal involvement in the events that give rise to
any of his claims. Mr. Ingram’s Objections state the exact same argument that was presented to
the Magistrate Judge. Mr. Ingram asks the Court to permit him to amend his Complaint to
include the information that he provided in his response to the Motion to Dismiss. As the
Magistrate Judge correctly explained, a “‘pleading may not be amended by a brief in opposition
to a motion to dismiss.’” ECF No. 34, at 19 (quoting Bracken v. County of Allegheny, No. 2:16-

cv-171, 2017 WL 5593451, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2017)). Therefore, Mr. Ingram’s Objection
is overruled.

F. Constitutional Claims against Darr, Zaken, Varner, and Carpenter
Mr. Ingram objects to the dismissal of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims
asserted against the above-named Defendants. He argues that, because the Magistrate Judge
found that Mr. Ingram had established a liberty interest in his reparole date of August 3, 2021,
the claims should not be dismissed. In discussing whether Mr. Ingram had a liberty interest in
his reparole date, the Magistrate Judge merely stated that she would, “accept Ingram’s assertions
[of a liberty interest] for the purposes of deciding Defendants’ motion to dismiss.” ECF No. 34,
at 8 n. 7. Such language, used by the Magistrate Judge in her Report and Recommendation, is
not a ruling or finding of any liberty interest in a reparole date, either in fact or at law. Mr.
Ingram’s Objection is overruled.

G. Final “Objection”
Mr. Ingram’s final “Objection” is a request that “any ruling concerning this claim be
stayed or held in abeyance.” ECF No. 42, at 18. Mr. Ingram states that he has simultaneously
filed a section “2254 Petition along with this objection.” Id. Objections to a Report and
Recommendation is not the proper avenue for requesting a stay or abeyance. Moreover, Mr.
Ingram has provided no sufficient basis to explain why a stay is necessary. His objection is
denied, without prejudice.

II. Conclusion

The Court overrules each of Mr. Ingram’s Objections. The Court accepts the Report and
Recommendation as to the Magistrate Judge’s disposition of each of Mr. Ingram’s claims. The
Court also accepts the Magistrate Judge’s legal analysis, as supplemented herein. The
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be denied as to Mr. Ingram’s retaliation claim against
Defendant Lynch and granted in all other respects.
Accordingly, the following Order is hereby entered.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of May 2023, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

I. The District Court’s March 27, 2023 Memorandum Order, adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 34, as to Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss is hereby vacated in favor of the within Memorandum Opinion and Order.

II. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 34, filed on February 3, 2023,
providing recommendations as to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, as supplemented by this
Memorandum Opinion addressing Plaintiff’s Objections, is adopted as the Opinion of this Court.

III. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 16, is DENIED in part and GRANTED
in part.
A. The Motion is Denied as to Mr. Ingram’s retaliation claim against individual
Defendant Allen Lynch.
B. The Motion is Granted as to all remaining claims and Defendants as follows:
1. All claims asserted against all Defendants in their official capacity
are dismissed, with prejudice.
2. Plaintiff’s claims, as asserted in his Complaint as First Amendment
retaliation claims and Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and
Fourteenth Amendment due process claims, based upon the alleged
issuance of a false misconduct, an unfair disciplinary proceeding, and the
rescission of Mr. Ingram’s automatic reparole, are dismissed, with
prejudice.
3. Plaintiff’s First Amendment access-to-court claim, asserted against
Lynch, is dismissed, with prejudice.
4. Defendants Davis and Milliken are dismissed from this action,
without prejudice.
5. Leave to amend the Complaint is granted, but only as to claims Mr.
Ingram may successfully plead against Davis or Milliken.
6. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint on or before
July 3, 2023. If no amended complaint is filed by July 3, 2023,
Defendant Lynch shall file an Answer to the remaining retaliation claim
against Lynch.

This matter is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

_s/Marilyn J. Horan
Marilyn J. Horan
United States District Judge
cc: Kai D. Ingram, pro se
HC8003
SCI-GREENE
169 PROGRESS DRIVE
WAYNESBURG, PA 15370

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10418729. Public record. Not legal advice.